Ideas and Ideals

This paper is devoted to the analysis and to the comparison of concepts on theodicy and on the nature of evil that was developed by two medieval Jewish philosophers. They are Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides or Ralbag, 1288-1344) and Hasdai Crescas (1340-1410/12). The sources of the analysis are the third chapter of the fourth book of the “Wars of the Lord” (1329) by Gersonides and the second chapter of the second book of the “Light of the Lord” (1410) by Crescas. Both philosophers assert that evil essentially cannot come from God. The causes of evil are the sinfulness of human beings, or the celestial bodies, or the breaking of the connection between human and God. The problem of evil and injustice in this world are closely related for Gersonides and Crescas to other problems, such as divine knowledge of future events, free will, reasons for reward and punishment. Gersonides and Crescas differ considerably on these issues. Gersonides demonstrates that God is not an essential source of evil. He proceeded to build on this statement with the fallacy of the opinion that divine providence extends to individuals. After all, said Gersonides, retribution would make God a source of evil. And in this case, righteous men would always be rewarded, and sinners would always be punished for their sins. But obviously this is not the case. Crescas, in contrast to Gersonides, claims that God knows individuals. This does not prevent him from agreeing with Ralbagh that God is not the source of evil. According to Сresсas, any punishment or suffering (even for the righteous) always leads to good. It is obvious therefore that Crescas adheres to a more traditional position, trying, inter alia, to bring his thoughts as close as possible to the ideas expressed in the Torah. Gersonides adheres to a position close to the ideas of Maimonides. Gersonides, in the author’s opinion, created a philosophical concept that is more consistent in comparison with Crescas’ conception, however more distant from the Jewish teaching.

The purpose of this paper is to show how the thought and speech of people holding and defending directly opposite positions affect the change in the thought and speech of people of their own and subsequent generations, with different life orientations, and to find ways of this influence. The author describes the situation that arose at the end of the sixties of the twentieth century, known as the ideological dispersal of philosophical, historical and sociological trends that ran counter to the policy of the CPSU, which became especially fierce in the fight against opponents after the USSR’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in August, 1968. One of the results of such an ideological battle was the defeat of the sector of the methodology of history of the Institute of General History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by M. Ya. Gefter, who published a series of books in which the so-called laws of historical development (formational approach) were questioned and the fundamental provisions of the classics of Marxism-Leninism were criticized.  The subject of analysis is Gefter’s article “A Page from the History of Marxism in the Early 20th Century”, published in the book “Historical Science and Some Problems of the Modernity”, dedicated to the analysis of Lenin’s tactics and strategy development which changed the views of many, especially young, historians on the historical process, and most importantly - on the methods of seeking and expressing the truth. The differences were expressed primarily in the fact that the proponents and defenders of the Soviet regime, which was based on their own established norms of Marxism-Leninism, fearlessly used all means of pressure on unwanted opponents. Professionals, however, who tried to understand the true sense of the historical process, the sense of judgments about it, especially the sense of the revolutionary struggle against the autocracy, unfolding at the beginning of the twentieth century, were forced to use the Aesopian language, which also provoked a distortion of this sense in many ways: due to the nebulous and veiled expressions, which give the impression of theoretical blackmail, causing such consequences as speech irresponsibility.

The article deals with the analysis of the Soviet national policy from a historical perspective with a focus on investigating into conditions of the loyalty of national elites towards the central government in the last period of the USSR existence. The indicators of the low level loyalty are as follows: supporting the ideas of national sovereignty and independence, participating in the national movement by ruling cadres, influential intellectuals and population. The author shows low sympathy of both groups of representatives: elites and broad population to nationalist ideas. The analysis is based on comparing contrastive cases – the Soviet elites of the Baltic republics (Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia) and Belorussia in their interactions with the central government as well as local population in the period from 1945 to 1991. These republics, their population and elites were similar regarding some important aspects such as historical and cultural as well as demographic characteristics in the case of Belorussia and Lithuania; some important features of the industry (big export-oriented enterprises) regarding Estonia, Latvia and Belorussia. At the same time, these cases showed a different level of the loyalty towards the Union center, namely, relatively high among the Belorussian Soviet ruling cadres and population and relatively low in the Baltic republics by the end of 1980s.

The important aspect of the Soviet national policy was establishing new national elites, educational and cultural institutions preserving their native languages as well as the promotion of native cadres into the positions of power in the regional administration. In some respects, this policy was similar to the “indirect rule” implemented in the imperial period of Russian history and consisted in the cooperation between the central government and local elites as the main approach to administrating a multinational state. However, in comparison with the previous practice tending to include national elites in the imperial nobility, the post revolutionary approach considered the creation of national elites through promoting local cultural and educational institutions that offer quite prestigious but specific positions occupied mostly by representatives of the respective ethnic group.

Creating local elites reduced the competition for “universal” positions since socialization and career of “national staff” were oriented towards national institutes. However, increasing numbers of “national staff” with limited positions for them had negative social consequences (elite overproduction). Intra-elite tension increased due to the migration from other regions (in the case of Latvia and Estonia). The other reason of this phenomenon was pursuing socialization strategies oriented to the places of origin (in the case of Lithuania). The attractiveness of the Baltic republics both for local population and migrants from other regions of the USSR was caused by a relatively high level of living standards in these union republics.

Location of big export-oriented enterprises in the territory of Belorussia created conditions for preferring socialization strategies oriented towards integration with the Soviet Union economy and, therefore, enhanced loyalty towards the USSR center from both elites and population. Besides, the administrative apparatus of the Soviet Belorussia was recruited extensively among participants of the Soviet partisan movement 1941–1944 what explains the devotion of the Belorussian elite to the Soviet symbols and values. At the same time, the base of the legitimization of the Soviet Lithuanian elite was its ability to control the anti-Soviet (nationalist) movement as well supporting national culture and language.

Is there a universal human mind? The Western European philosophizing paradigm with well-developed methodological tools provides an affirmative answer to this question. It is generally accepted that rationality is the same, and scientific and technological progress that transformed the planet is the fruit of Western European culture. It would be very strange to talk about the “atlas of rationality,” or “the geography of rationality”, about European, Arab, Chinese, or African rationality within the framework of the Western European conceptual philosophizing system. However, with the entry into the socio-political and economic arena of non-Western civilizations, and, accordingly, worldviews and traditions of philosophizing, the question arose of alternative understandings of rationality. The eternal philosophical problem of the universal and the concrete-unique has received a new sound in the context of globalization and the growing complex interaction of cultures. A new planetary world order is being created along with a rethinking of the fundamental problem of nature and the possibilities of the human mind.

Is there a universal human mind in general?

The demands of life and the future world order brought to life the project of the Round Table “Geography of Rationality”, which is annually held at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Project Manager – Director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician A.V. Smirnov. Moderators: Professor I.A. Gerasimova (Institute of Philosophy, RAS), Professor A.A. Krushinskiy (Institute of the Far East, RAS). You can get acquainted with the heated discussions through the videos of March 20, 2018, April 25 and June 13, 2019.

The meeting of East and West at the Round Table was an attempt to expand the dialogue to professional interdisciplinary cooperation. The discussion was attended, on the one hand, by experts with knowledge of oriental languages ​​and philosophical teachings: Indologists, Arabists, Sinologists, Japanese historians, researchers of the Persian language and culture of Iran. The ancient Russian rational culture, as well as the first geopolitical situation that arose when Europeans appeared in the New World, were not forgotten. The “Westerners” were represented by epistemologists, methodologists of science, logicians, cognitive scientists, and synergetics. With each regular meeting, new specialists join the dialogue.

If at the first meeting the question of the “geography of rationality” arose in general terms, then in the subsequent meetings more specific problems were discussed. Each culture is unique, the system of thinking is directly linked to the realities of the language. There was and remains the problem of the adequacy of translation from one language to another language, and, accordingly, the problem of the transfer of meaning and understanding. At the same time, the exchange of knowledge and practices between cultures has always existed. Historically, people have found opportunities to understand the Other and learn from valuable experience. European philosophy in all its many directions and doctrines has developed a filigree language for discussing the diversity of the problems of cognition of nature, society and man. But the meeting of East and West showed that not everything is embraced by a positively directed philosophical thought. There can be disparate pictures of the world, different linguistic pictures of the world, diametrically opposite value orientations.

How to learn to understand each other? In western and domestic universities, philosophy courses are taught in the Western European paradigm and within the framework of the Western European conceptual system. The attitude to conceptual Eurocentrism is twofold: on the one hand, we understand something in our native language, which is constantly evolving, incorporating the concepts of a different system, and on the other hand, the orientation exclusively on conceptual Eurocentrism often simplifies and distorts real situations. Apparently, mutual understanding of cultures can only be achieved through joint efforts.

Turning to a specifically different one not only leads to a deeper understanding of one's own culture, but also conceals new possibilities of creativity, expanding the horizons of thought. For example, the problem of the procedural ontology of the Arabic language has exacerbated the question of ontologies of Indo-European languages ​​and models of logic that are “supportive” for Western European rationality (Round table from June 13, 2019).

The fourth Round Table “Geography of Rationality” was held in the context of the coronovirus pandemic, but this did not become an obstacle for the project participants. The remote access discussion focused around A.A. Krushinskiy “Subject, space, time: how to read the ancient Chinese text” (Round table on March 31, 2020). If philosophical systems based on Indo-European languages ​​can be considered on the principle of family similarity, then the situation with the Chinese language and mentality is more complicated. Translations of classical ancient texts from Chinese into Russian vary to such an extent that one can doubt the professional qualifications of specialists. But what then should the philosophical community do? How to avoid profanity when introducing eastern philosophies into the general philosophical space? The controversy between the Sinologists touched upon problems that went beyond exclusively historical and philosophical research: the relationship between historical and philosophical studies and philosophical methodologies (S.Yu. Rykov); polysemy of languages, including the Chinese language (M.V. Rubets), the problem of protosubject in the Chinese text (N.V. Pushkarskaya), the question of multilevel meaning generation and specific trajectories of cognitive evolution in the "atlas of rationality" (I.A. Gerasimova), about the values ​​of old texts in the context of modern realities on the example of a pandemic (M.R. Burget Ayala). Through centuries, the dialogue on behalf of Kant, Hegel, and the Sufi sages was conducted in a dispute on the problem of time by two orientalists – R.V. Pskhu and A.V. Paribok whose preferences have diverged.

Philosophical discussions are traditionally famous for posing questions and unexpected coverage of problems. The participants in the discussions on the project “Geography of Rationality” hope for the fruitfulness of their undertakings. The concept of the journal “Ideas and Ideals” contains a call for the development of broad public philosophical discussions on pressing problems of modern life and the future world order. The participants in the discussions of the Round table “The Geography of Rationality” hope for mutual understanding and active participation of readers of the journal “Ideas and Ideals”. The unity of the cultural centers of Moscow and Novosibirsk can be regarded as a landmark event.

The 2020 presidential campaign of the Democratic party surprised both voters and analysts by setting new precedents and showcasing innovations in the art of political campaigning. Several different approaches to the organization of ground game (GG) were used in the campaign. This article aims to describe and analyze the main trends, strategies, and technologies of GG in presidential elections in the last twenty years with the aim of better understanding what is happening in the current one. It also details the main reasons why the attention to GG in presidential campaigns has significantly increased in the last few years: further polarization and even balance of political views in the country, an increase in the number of "independents" with the simultaneous decrease of party membership and influence, the emergence of multiple powerful players: interest groups, social movements and "shadow" (unofficial) parties. All these trends turned the recent presidential campaigns into a ground war in the competitive states and districts. The article deals with the innovations in organization of GG which have taken place in the period from George W. Bush's campaign all the way to Mike Bloomberg's recent attempt to enter the democratic race: multilayered marketing, microtargeting, phone bank programs, distributed or big organizing, philanthropy networking, etc. The main focus is on the organizational structure of GG and the methods of putting together a campaign coalition. The article describes the four basic organizational models of GG: a party infrastructure, a hierarchical network of social organizers, a campaign arranged as a social movement, buying support through sponsorship and philanthropy work. These models are not mutually exclusive. The 2020 primaries are analyzed with the help of these models. The article explains why and how one of the least promising candidates, Biden, became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party.  Our analysis of failed attempts to replicate the pervious campaigns also allows us to make a confident prediction that, if Biden’s compaign will be made in the mold of 2012 Obama campaign, it will not be successful.

The article raises the problem of a methodologically correct variable description of sociocultural transformations models as the basis for effective models regulating the corresponding processes. In the paradigmatic field of sociocultural research, there is a whole range of interpretations of the sociocultural approach put forward in connection with the analysis of the socio-cultural dynamics and sociocultural transformations of various world regions. On the basis of highlighting various interpretations of the sociocultural approach, the authors explicate different models of sociocultural transformations. The importance of the methodological heritage of P.A Sorokin for the analysis of this process is emphasized. The authors offer their vision of this prominent Russian-American sociologist’s research on the description of sociocultural transformations, and an assessment of its possible use in relation to contemporary Russia.

According to the authors, in the terminology of P.A. Sorokin pre-revolutionary Russian and Soviet cultures should be identified as ideational cultures that developed in the paradigm of Orthodoxy and its reformation. The history of Russia can be viewed as a series of successive and growing tides of ideational culture that were occasionally held back by the temporary rise of sensual culture. The post-Soviet period is viewed as a controversial process of planting sensual culture. In the future, another tide of ideational culture is possible.

It is concluded that in the diagnosis of the sociocultural dynamics of modern Russia, it is possible to use various interpretations that provide an empirically-specific description of the course of sociocultural transformations. The use of competing methodological interpretations and model typologies can provide a diverse and panoramic analysis of sociocultural dynamics, which is an important theoretical prerequisite for determining the optimal models for its regulation at different levels of social organization in the perspective of sociocultural integration of Russia. Taking into account its wide regional and ethnocultural diversity, it is possible to implement various phase models of sociocultural transformations depending on the type of region, characteristics of the ethnocultural and ethno-confessional landscape.

The article discusses the relationship of the need for privacy with the development of the individualism. The right to privacy as the autonomy of the self first appeared in Western European culture basing on the idea of individualism. Privacy protects an individual from the unwanted interference of society and the state. The realization of the right to privacy depends on the social environment - the norms and customs of society. The process of individualization took place as a result of the transition from the traditional society to the modern society, which gave a person both the right and the duty to make decisions regarding his own life. An individual received a chance to become the creator of his own destiny, which had previously been socially predetermined. The development of privacy and individualism requires an appropriate sociocultural foundation that emerged during the evolutionary process, which originated in the High Middle Ages and accelerated during the transition to the New Age. Individualization is associated with the development of the inner world as the basis of subjectivity, which was particularly influenced by the Catholic confession, which prompted the analysis of one's own spiritual motives and the teachings of Protestantism with its idea of personal responsibility. The reflection of the growth of the individuality of consciousness is reflected in the art of portrait and self-portrait, depicting a human face in its originality. Increased interest in one’s own self, in one’s own emotional life, is expressed in introspection, analysis of one’s own feelings and motives, as evidenced by the growing number of autobiographical sources. The growing literacy of the population led to the popularity of literary and philosophical societies, which discussions created a platform for bourgeois publicity. Industrialization, which entailed the separation of the place of work and home, served to create a home as a closed private space and a nuclear family as one of the most important values of bourgeois society. Individualization brought for a person both new chances in the form of the right to self-determination and self-development, as well as certain risks and contradictions: the fear of loneliness, the feeling of being thrown out into the world, the need to make an independent choice and solely responsible for its consequences.

  Abstract The paper deals in detail with the biographies of three women representing three consecutive generations in computing and programming. All the three have firm personalities and work with commitment and perseverance towards the objectives set in their academic career development. They have displayed a high level of competence and ability to strategize in various social, political and economic situations. In addition to reconstructing the biographies of these three scholars on the basis of documents, we have done some research (using the microanalytical strategy) to determine how general and specific gender imperatives have influenced their view of the world and life quality. The general gender imperatives derive from the patriarchal or feminist picture of the world, and specific gender imperatives become apparent in problem situations related to career, self-realization, double standards, etc. All the three women are/were affiliated with Soviet/Russian Academy of Science, have a degree in mathematics and computation and specialize in programming.

The article deals with the problem of correlation between the theory and practice of Russian federalism. The author shows the relationship between sovereignization and the formation of a new Russian statehood at the beginning of the 1990s. The author also highlights the cyclicality of fluctuations from decentralization to over-centralization in relations between the center and the region. Federalism is seen as an institution, as a normative model, and as a practice. The paper draws particular attention to the historical context of the formation of the Russian statehood: “the parade of sovereignties”, the collapse of the USSR, the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federative Treaty on the authority demarcation with the Republic of Tatarstan. The author suggests that the inertia of decentralization after the collapse of the USSR not overcome by the Russian Federation in the 1990s prompted the federal center to borrow elements of unitarism. In the 2000s negotiability inability of elites in all authority levels was forcibly compensating by construction of “power vertical”. However, already by the mid-2000s the management centralization turns into a self-sufficient trend. The comprehension of the phenomenon of Russian federalism, the compliances of institutional practices with constitutional principles, the search for its optimal model and other issues served as a starting point for an interdisciplinary discussion. To date, several directions have been formed, each of which has its own argumentation in the dispute between supporters and opponents of federalism, who believe, that the unitary model of Russia's structure to be more optimal. It has been suggested that the negative experience of decentralization of the 1990s is associated in academic and everyday discourse with federalization. Such a setup prevents the objective understanding of this phenomenon as a factor that has played a positive role in the formation of the new post-Soviet statehood of Russia. The thesis is substantiated by the fact that with the entry of the Crimea into Russia, the federalist discourse acquired a new breath. To prove this argument, the author refers to cases illustrating the desire of individual subjects to use the institutions of federalism to build parity relations with the center to solve issues that are under the joint jurisdiction of Moscow and the regions. The author comes to the conclusion about maturing of prerequisites for a new cycle in the development of federal relations. The lack of budgetary funds, which the majority of subjects is experiencing now, makes them exercise their authorities, pushes regions to the need to expand the scope of their rights. The strategies of interaction between the federal center and the subjects of the Russian Federation are proposed to be described in the metaphors of bargaining and partnership.